Introduction
Many readers of ROK may believe that feminism, with its supposed goal of achieving equality between men and women by promoting women’s rights, is a relatively new concept that was developed after the Industrial Revolution. However, at least one attempt to implement women’s rights occurred in antiquity, in the land of ancient Sparta.
The very name Sparta makes one think of the epitome of manliness; a society composed of tall, muscular, and highly disciplined soldiers. The Spartans were ruthless warriors who despised weakness and cowardice. Given Sparta’s penchant for manliness, it may come as some surprise to learn that Sparta, of all the Greek city-states, had the most liberal civil laws when it came to the rights of its women.
In Spartan society, women could own estates, travel freely without male escort, and even initiate divorce. These rights were far from the historical norm. Indeed, one may see many parallels between women’s rights in Ancient Sparta and those found in the modern developed world.
Given how the manosphere, and by extension ROK, finds many laws related to feminism and the sexual revolution to be harmful to society, it is imperative that those involved in the manosphere understand how such laws came into practice in the first place. The implementation of laws supporting women’s rights is a function of the economy, and come into existence only through economic necessity. Spartan civilization provides a perfect example of this.
The events that led to the implementation of women’s rights in Sparta
Spartan civilization was warrior-based, meaning that little effort was put into developing agriculture and art, and much effort was put into pillaging and stealing lands and wealth from other civilizations. When the Spartans conquered an enemy, they enslaved the populace and turned their lands into plantations. The enslaved people were expected to provide produce and goods to their Spartan masters. Slave revolts were common, and Sparta needed a large standing army in order to quell any rebellions that might occur.
When Sparta conquered the neighboring territory of Messenia in the late 8th century B.C., the first step in granting women more legal rights was taken. Sparta gained the valuable assets of fertile land and slaves by conquering Messenia, but Sparta faced new challenges through this victory. With such a large slave population, Sparta needed a much larger army to make sure the slaves didn’t rebel against their masters.
By increasing the size of their army, there were fewer Spartan men on the home front to manage estates and the non-military and other economic aspects of Spartan civilization. Because of this, it became an economic necessity to grant women more political freedom so they could take the place of men by managing the estates and civil affairs of Sparta.
After the conquest of Messenia, the Spartan constitution was reformed so that women could have formal titles to property, as well as the legal rights, training and capability to do with land as Spartan men did. This was to provide an incentive to Spartan women to maintain the estates, because it is hard to motivate someone if they cannot profit from the fruits of their labor.
The decline of women’s rights in Sparta
However, the rights women acquired did not last forever. These rights, which provided women with the necessary tools to successfully run estates, also increased the opportunity cost of having children. With women having more freedom than ever before, they ended up producing fewer children. By the early 4th century B.C., Sparta’s population was one-fifth of what it had been 200 years prior, an astonishing reduction. It is interesting to note that this is also the case in the modern developed world, where birth rates have been below replacement levels for decades.
This shocking drop in population resulted in a smaller army, as fewer men were being born. Sparta’s military was weakened. With Sparta’s defeat by Thebes in 370 B.C., the Messenians revolted and defeated the Spartans. This defeat caused the Spartans to lose a significant amount of territory, as well as the large slave population they depended upon for their material well-being.
Because of this loss, there was no reason to maintain the constitutional reforms that gave Spartan women their rights, and by the time of the Romans (post-146 B.C.) Spartan women were again solely known for their domestic virtues and roles in religious ceremonies. Sparta even established a magistrate that oversaw the behavior of women, which would have been unthinkable during the Spartan occupation of Messenia. By this time, women’s rights in Sparta were finished.
What Can We Learn From Spartan History?
One of the most important things we can learn from Spartan history is that women’s rights were historically enacted not out of ideology, but rather out of economic necessity. There is a direct causation between the capture of Messenia and the rise of women’s rights, as there is a direct causation between the loss of Messenia and the revoking of women’s rights.
Keep in mind it was Spartan men who held governmental power, and it was Spartan men who gave women their short-lived economic and societal influence. They did this for shrewd economic purposes, and were not driven by ideology, even through the Spartan men were very democratic and considered themselves as “homoioi,” or the “equal ones,” and therefore did not lack ideology.
Clearly, women’s rights in ancient Sparta was self-defeating, as the reduction in population weakened the army that held up the economic system in the first place. Hopefully, we can learn from history and try to correct the mistakes of the past.
Note: Credit goes to this piece for inspiring this article, and the original research paper this article is based on can be found here.
Read More: The Roots Of Masculinity In Ancient Rome
Giving women power, leads only to destruction.
Feminism is a luxury product of privilege and should not be applied to the real world
The richer a country is, the more likely they will have some brand of feminism.
If feminists gain what they seem to so desire, and create some form of matriarchal utopia, they will find that they will be held back more than they ever were under the ‘patriarchy’. Women are each others worst enemy – and they know this.
Women in power? End of civilisation.
Hillary Clinton in power? End of America.
Men are constructive. Women are destructive. Men invent and build. Women tear down the accomplishments of men, in the name of feminism.
It is easier to find an invention that was made by a black guy living in a black society than it is find any such thing made by any woman.
I think you guy don’t get it. We have feminism because we have prosperity.
If you want to end feminism, you’ll have to accept to live in survival-oriented societies where you may not be better off (sexually and economically).
This system we’re living in is actually what the best most beta males can get.
We have feminism because the elites and intelligence agencies wanted to destroy the nuclear family, expand the tax base, cheapen labor costs and generally create societal chaos.
Prosperity just made feminism palatable. The real impetus for it was the need to fund the Black Budget, and the subversive agenda as outlined in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Where do you get these informations from? I suspect many guys here just need somebody to blame and not work out a real solution
or we could have just nipped it in the bud back in the 1870’s. sometimes I wonder what would have been if instead of being humored by their husbands the early feminists were shipped off to a sanitarium to cleanse them of their hysteria.
That would have been a great idea.
All over the net, man. Which is the alternative media, generally speaking. Some of the conspiracy sites (like prison planet, info wars, above top secret, and godlike productions) are rife with bs so you have to learn to filter the information.
veterans today is a good site, rense has some good stuff, henry makow and brother nathaniel are pretty good as well. Here’s a vid of Hollywood former producer and elitist insider Aaron Russo exposing feminism and 9/11 as part of the agenda:
The real solution, for many disaffected guys, is to live minimally, be MGTOW, using game to get laid when the opp presents itself (rather than active hunting), and self-education through the internet. Any solution gets “realer” once you’re able to more clearly see the problem in its entirety.
I think people actually need to unplug and travel the world. They will understand that modernity and progress come with a price. Feminism and “cultural marxism” thrive because we’re in an affluent society. The alternative would be poverty.
Or we can just shoot the cancerous lesions the minute there is an outbreak.
Women are desperate to be like men, that it now looks ridiculous.
Men are the true innovators and entrepreneurs of our time. We build companies and revolutionise this world. That is not a an opinion, but an actual fact. If you look back through history, you will see that all of the greatest entrepreneurs, industrialists and innovators were men. Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, Laxmi Mittal, Richard Branson etc. The list goes on and on. Now how many women have achieved what those couple of examples have accomplished? Not that many.
Which is why power can corrupt us as individual, if we misuse and abuse it. In this case, what women are doing to men. As long as feminism is entrenched in everything, from the family courts, the media, government and now employment, men will continue to get hit by this tidal wave. Feminism is the epitome and definition of meritocracy not having any real value. More women continue to displace men in the labor market, because they know they cannot compete and earn their way into the world. Yet they will scream, that somehow, they have worked and earned their place in society.
Absolute nonsense if you ask me.
Despite having all the same opportunities as those great men (and others), women will say that the magical mystical patriarchy held them back so they couldn’t experience the same successes.
The reason women replace men in the labour market is because of affirmative action and “gender quotas”. Any power that women hold is because of what other males have given them. Yet despite how much they have, they still want more. And they keep getting more. It sickens me.
True. But don’t forget the corruption of HR departments- when they hire men for a job, they also fire them at the end of the day, and replace them with a female candidate.
That way, they can say that they tried hiring a male, but he was not sufficient for the job.
Sickening if you ask me. As long as HR departments continue to exist, men will find it more and more difficult to enter the workforce and will find themselves either unemployed or as the trophy husband.
”Women are desperate to be like men” – –
Notice how the really dumb and low I.Q. females are hit the hardest by the women’s lib propaganda. Really with any propaganda, the dummies fall for it the hardest and it’s hard to peel them away from the thought patterns without peeling away their friggin’ SKIN along with it. A fairly bright girl who can think for herself though will ditch the feminism with little afterthought whereas the borderline RETARD bitch will continue babbling ”I need pants”, ”I can’t raise kids”, ”I need to be independent” ad nauseum . . and they continue spewing the shit and trying to run with it until they crash and bust their pea brain against the wall. They’re the worst fatalities of the feminist poisoning.
You are correct in that divisive politics only preys on the weak minded. If a black man can blame “racism” for his lack of achievement, he never has to feel ashamed. Same with women. The smart ones, however, block out the white noise and press on.
To be objective, you must consider the role that historically unequal acess to money and education plays in the paucity of female inventors, innovators and captains of industry. Bit hard to build a railroad or steel mill in Carnegie’s time when you were a female without education or inheritance.
Unfortunately, a supposedly “equal” access to money and education leads to a paucity of female or male inventors, innovators, and captains of industry. See: Russia since the Workers’ Revolution.
Marshall,
I think it’s actually simple oxygen that leads to a paucity of female inventors and innovators.
Restricted access to education=no female inventors
Education as a temple of female worship (current status of education, in other words) =no female inventors.
Both ends of the spectrum and there has been NOTHING. There has been such a lack of innovation from females that it never even makes it to the table for discussion.
Women lack so much in the innovation department that they can’t even invent their own sanitary napkins etc.
Just look at India, a country with over 600 million sheilas and yet not a single one of them was able to create an affordable napkin. It took an Indian gentleman to do it. A school dropout no less.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26260978
Women should never had gained rights to vote or work at big jobs.
Totally agree.
Eh, this is more like an interesting suggestion for men to research on their own. Not a definitive explanation. If men care to that is.
The fact is, feminism is a by-product of wealthier nations. Romans, Spartans, and the Modern West all have allowed it.
But their is something drastically different this time!
Women are the sole chooser of when, where, and with whom they get knocked up. More than ever before. They also have the right to vote, even the Spartans knew better than that.
Since the cat is out of the bag however, what does one do?
I suggest follow the male version of the feminist playbook. It has been done before, but men and women alike were quick to put down any men’s movement of the past.
The Internet is our advantage over our predecessors.
If men as a whole reduce women to their modern role, and completely decouple them from the privilege of the past. Then men will never have to listen to these harpies ever again.
However, we cannot do as the feminists have done when it comes to going against biology. If we tell men not to fuck, we will get laughed at. If we tell men to do it like African Elephants, letting the women have their little matriarchies, while men only come to bang, then we still get offspring. But we lose out on civilization.
So, a new paradigm, distinct from the marital paradigm of the past will be required.
Frankly, I have no idea what that is yet?
I agree. Feminism is the result of a certain level of affluence in society. It repeats itself throughout history (someone posted a picture on ROK once that talks about certain liberal ideals that were encouraged in the decline of the Roman Empire that are being repeated today during the decline of the West; I wish I had the picture!).
The internet is an advantage we have today, but it is also an advantage that they have as well, so the net effect is zero.
If all men decided tomorrow that women should return to their designed roles, society would get back on track. However ,most men are so brainwashed by leftist values that this would be impossible (“if I kiss her ass enough, she’ll DEFINITELY have sex with me!!”).
Call me a pessimist, but I truly believe society will have to burn to the ground for it to be righted. The question for me is: will wecontinue repeating this societal cycle?
You can’t just decide that “all women” should do anything. If you support a woman, then you certainly can expect whatever “role” that you are willing to pay for. If you somehow long for a world in which you don’t have to work double time to enable a non- working spouse, you are living a fantasy.
Said that so many times. See it looks and sounds good for a while but then reality sets in.
“If all men decided tomorrow that women should return to their designed roles, society would get back on track.”
Actually, if you do this, you’ll get back to a model of society where most guys would be poor. So they would not have access to quality pussy and they would starve.
The society you are complainng about may actually the best deal for you.
Sex robots and surrogates? Japanese men are embracing the former.
We do need to reduce the global population. It can be done uniformly through a one child policy. Automation will lead to work becoming redundant. It makes sense to have fewer people around over generations.
The problem is that this is done in a silly and ideological way.
Why can’t the government just come out and admit that depopulation is a GOOD thing? The agricultural land is so depleted people get 1/2 to 1/10th of the minerals they did in the 1930s, when the agricultural land was already somewhat depleted. There are so many people alive, even the food has become degraded.
As supertechnology becomes ubiquitous (imagine being able to make a nuclear bomb in a 3d printer), we NEED surveillance and thought control. Eventually we HAVE to merge into one consciousness, or some form of universal regulation, or some idiot somewhere will inevitably destroy the entire solar system with his home-made fusion bomb. Consider how dangerous the world is with nuclear proliferation amongst states. Imagine how dangerous it will become with such proliferation amongst *people*.
However, the way this sensible approach is being implemented seems to me to be rather vicious. Why are men penalised, even though we’re the most logical and careful?
The USA, the world’s #1 debtor nation, cannot afford to have its population shrink. Unless more mindless worker drones are spawned out of its trailer parks and inner cities, expect more opening of immigration (I am not making a position on whether this is good or bad; it is simply inevitable in order to feed the debt beast). Creditor nations can afford to depopulate, and will become more wealthy by doing so. Debtor nations cannot.
I think once we have unlimited production, and, with super-efficient recycling and extra-planetary mining, we’ll have nearly unlimited resources. Once we develop fusion power (or even widespread solar power), we’ll have nearly unlimited energy. If resources are nearly unlimited, what does debt mean? If everyone can have whatever they want without any consequences to anyone else, what purpose does debt serve? But to reach this point, the population must come down. This standard of living cannot be met for 9 billion people. If there was a global one child policy was put in place, the population would be down to 1 billion, 500 million, 250 million, 5-10 million superhumans pretty soon.
You’re also ignoring that if productivity rises tremendously, as it is expected to, one person can produce as much as 10 or 100 in the past. At this point, population and GDP become less tied together, or even become irrelevant. Humans become irrelevant to the economy.
The only purpose debt will serve is to keep certain populations in servitude to others. If the goal is the reduce the population, as it needs to be, then perhaps debt can be used to stop people having more than one child. I think western politicians are being shortsighted in their desire for immigrants, when the global production chain already allows very low labour costs. I think it’s just greed on the part of those who don’t even want to pay decent domestic wages.
I’m pretty sure it’ll be more or less impossible to ever build a nuclear weapon with a 3D printer, mainly because a nuclear weapon requires a certain quantity of U-238 to create a critical mass sufficient for a chain reaction to occur. 3D printers can’t create elements out of nothing. U-238 does not occur naturally in the sense that while stable isotopes of uranium are common, you can’t make U-238 out of them unless you have a dedicated facility for concentrating natural uranium into the kind that blows shit up. And absent whatever happens in Iran in the next few years, U-238 , taking a leaf from Doc Brown, is not and never will be available at your local corner drug store.
Homebuilt fusion weapons are also impossible, since the only way to make a hydrogen bomb explode with enough force to create nuclear fusion is to have a nuclear fission bomb as the trigger.
My answer – deny motherhood to unfeminine women at all costs.
And in further news….women are stoopid.
What feminists want is to increase female power while decreasing female accountability.
It seems like, in the case of the Western World , mass immigration will break feminism.
Hopefully it doesnt break the west beyond repair along with it
Very good comment I agree 100%
“Hopefully it doesnt break the west beyond repair along with it”
It will. I think moderated immigration is beneficial, but that is hardly what America has.
Not simply referring to America. The anglosphere, Europe.
Pretty much the only places not infected with feminism are in the Middle East.
Even South America, where Machismo is so heralded, is showing the signs of pulling on the pink panties.
Chile over-ruled divorce in the nineties, installing no-fault divorce in its place (with much help and funding from North American NGO’s). Mexico passed a law a few years ago making it illegal for men to make women jealous – seriously! (It’s a form of domestic violence).
There is not one corner of the world except for the Middle East that is not infected by feminism. It’s a global world, and this will be a global battle, or we will fall back into the petri-dish and reproduce asexually again until we again emerge over the edge of the dish and crawl out of the lab to try it all over ONE MORE TIME! (Note to descendents: Get better locks on the chastity belts next time!).
Not sure what you mean to say
I meant to say, how will mass immigration break feminism when mass immigration is infected with feminism?
That’s like saying the Jew Hatred will stop once the Jew Haters invade Germany.
I should think that mass immigration will break these countries, removing the luxury it needs to live
Interesting that the Mideast is always the mortal enemy, isn’t it? And before that it was Russia–the next best opposition to feminism.
The Mid East societies are in true shambles. The men do not labor and sit on a fortune that spills from the ground without thought or effort. This fortune is not renewable and they will have no fallback position when it ends. Every worker is foreign from the ones that actually run the rigs to the domestic help. Their women do not cook or raise children, those children are the most obese, illiterate and unmotivated of any modern society. Nothing to envy there, sir.
Maybe that’s the case for the small, filthy rich gulf states, but certainly not for the rest of it. Little-known fact: Most Middle Eastern states have little to no oil.
A society that is dependent on men to fight an do the hard work has no place for feminism. Feminism only becomes strongn societies that’s have an excess or resources a economics so they don’t need the men to survive, there’s exceptions but this is the general rule. Once the west collapses socially an economically as it has started to feminism will become irrelevant.
Question: If our economy has already collapsed, how is feminism still strong and getting stronger?
Answer: propaganda.
It hasn’t fully collapsed yet the West still has most of the worlds resources an unemployment hasn’t reached breaking point yet
You will know the collapse is here when one of two things happens. Governments declare bankruptct and stop all welfare programs or the more likely, it takes a billion dollars to buy an apple.
Exactly. We’re still VERY prosperous. Shut down your TV and travel to Latin America or Africa and you’ll see the difference.
Because it never has and never will occur to them that any of the decline is their fault. They have attacked men for fifty years now from every angle; family, court, education, media, pop culture. Now that the attack is showing some signs of effectiveness their response is;
“We knew we were right all along. We knew you guys were losers.”
The more they destroy and the more they make the US uninhabitable to men, the more they will blame men for leaving and being ‘weak’ or whatever pejorative they want to use. The place will end up in ashes and the women will STILL be celebrating the fact that they were ‘right.’
Solid argument for the “innate lack of accountability” angle. You could also say “projection”
Blaming your personal failures on any “ism” is actually quite weak, be it “racism”, “feminism” or “elite ism”.
Our societies have not collapsed. In Venezuela or Somalia, most people don’t have the luxury to sit and chat on internet.
Western societies are still prosperous but since we are spoiled kids who whine because Daddy can’t buy us a new toy.
We’re only still prosperous due to unsustainable levels of deficit spending. The wall is approaching at a rate of increasing speed, which will very likely result in either bankruptcy or hyperinflation. There’s a chance the tech sector may save us, but we need to bring some manufacturing back to the USA ASAP.
I don’t see it that way. American power is based on expansion. As long as the US gain teeritory and/or inflence, it will keep thriving. All US government have done a good job on this aspect. All this talk about Western collapse is just paranoia.
Influence through expansion or threat of expansion is based of off military spending on dollars we don’t have. The US is only thriving if you’re a female or Jewish male. Everyone else is being screwed, white and black alike…
Dude, we are all thriving. Poor people don’t have the luxury to come and debate on the internet.
I think you’re missing the point. America is strong because its leaders have always known how to fuck other nations:
– After the Louisiana Purhase, the US could dispossess more Indian territories war against primitive people (akin to Colonial wars initiated by Europeans)
– After the Mexican War, the US gobble half of Mexican territory and started the conquest of the West
– After the Sapanish-American War, the US gobbled half of Spanish colonies (including Hawaii and Puerto Rico)
– After WWI, the US used its financial power to put Western Europe, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan under its influence
– After 1991, they US has used NATO and the EU as a proxy to colonize Eastern Europe and it’s an ongoing process.
– America is now putting Africa under its unfluence. Eventually, the French and the Britsh will lose their influence there.
The day America stop expanding, it will be in deep shit. That’s why Obama is doing everything he can to eliminate Russia and China.
Obama is fucking with Russia and China due to BRICS. We are fucking with them out of desperation. If and when the Petrodollar collapses, which could very soon, the dollar will significantly collapse in value and the days of “thriving” will be over. The financial conditions of the 19th century, WWII and even 1991 no longer exist.
I don’t see any decline in the US. Maybe you should go to Latin America and see what decline really is.
RoK readers are just normal people like you and me. I doubt they have access to top secret information.
Stop taking this blog so seriously. It’s great for learning about game and masculinity but it’s still just a blog.
How can you not see any decline in the US? 68% of children are from means-tested families. Wait a few weeks and it will be 70%. That’s 70% of our children are from failing households. How blind can you be? Most of our wealth is from the past. In 1955 South Korea was a patch of dirt. Now go to Seoul and try to keep up clubbing, shopping, dining out with some young Seoulites. They’ll bankrupt you in a month of friendship.
68% of kids are from means-tested families? Poor people have more kids than rich people. Nothing new about that. Almost all kids are means-tested in France and none is in Somalia by the way.
Have you been to Latin America or SEA? You have it very good here believe me.
The US is incezasing its influence. I don’t think East Asia can keep up on the long run because they have a demographical decline: Japan is already is already doomed and unless it reunifies with North Korea,South Korea is doomed too. China is getting fucked on its own territory by the US in Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Stop buying the conspiracy agenda and stop belienving that those in power know less than you.
You’re a freaking mess of a human being. “Stop buying the conspiracy agenda” he says. Who needs to buy any conspiracy agenda when the facts are so damning? How did you grow up? What was your family situation? Hard working dad making good choices for your family? Spill.
I’ve lived in Latin America and the reason there is a lower quality of life is because the people have less accountability and don’t work as hard as 40’s – 80’s era Americans (who we’re still beholden to for our quality of life).
I grew up in an African environment where performance and 9-to-5 system mean are not means nothing. We were very happy until the White man decided to change our system. Now, we’re just like you: slaves of the 9-to-5 system with immigrants coming to fuck up our culture.
That’s a very philosophical persepctive, the fact remains that we are spending borrowed money and living on borrowed time.
Most developed countries do. Otherwise they couldn’t pay social benefits and keep their population calm.
Social programs are only very recently considered to be the governments responsibility.
You mean since 1930s in the US and post WW2 in Western Europe?
Yeah, even then it took catastrophic upheaval to encourage this. Charity is something that traditionally has been a community responsibility. The present situation is simply propping up an extremely disfunctional civilization.
The Welfare State was designed to keep the poor from revolting. Roosevelt and Keynes were no marxist.
This is not entirely correct. Sparta was highly dependent on its men to do the fighting. Thats why women took over the domestic economy. Thats more or less the major point of the article.
When men are all drafted to perform military duties, female labour force is required. Resources are not abundant, since women need to split their effort between either childrearing or entering the workforce as normal laborers in a citystate experiencing a labor shortage.
And the men are highly needed as soldiers in the field. There is full employment among the male population.
My point still stands as The Spartans didn’t yet have an excess of resources, they still needed to expand their territory an gain more slaves which is why putting females in traditional male roles hurt their society.
What hurt their society was actually the heavy reliance on slave labor and vassal states. See U.S undocumented laborers and any Mid East oil producing nation.
I meant feminism as an ideal not women working men’s jobs coz there was a shortage of like the case was wit the spartans. The spartans wernt feminists their women weren’t going around saying we need eqaul amounts of females in the spartan army or shaming spartan men for their masculan culture like modern day feminists.
Well yes. I think the author is pushing it a Little when he calls the spartan division of labor and early experiment with feminism.
Extensive female labor participation was based more on a necessity than an underlying ideology based on human rights.
Exactly but he does state that in the article though. It does show how putting women in the work force on a mass scale an keeping them from traditional feminine roles affects society in a negative way same as modern feminism though.
good point: it was a sexual division of labour with rights accompanying that division of labour. Today, rights are tied to the destruction of a division of labour based upon gender.
Women in Sparta managed households and to a large part estates, but did not really provide any real labor. Labor was provided by the serfs/helots.
That is most likely true. They did not engage in manuel labor. But nor did the majority of male spartans. Acting as managers and administrators is still work, but more similar to modern day White collar jobs.
Your theory is opposite of historical fact. In Sparta and in WWII u.S. women were admitted to the economic sphere precisely because men were absent fighting.
As I said in the other reply Spartans weren’t fminists, an putting women to work WW2 wasn’t feminism it was economic necessity. I’m talking about feminism as an ideal, it rarely exisits in masulan cultures. The spartan women weren’t demanding equal representation in the spartan army, they weren’t demanding an end to patriarchy an telling Spartan men that women should run Sparta, they
wern’t shaming Spartan men for being too masculine. They simply got put into men’s jobs coz most of the men weren’t there. Look at countries that the ideal of feminism has flourished, nearly all of them are are rich in economics an resources.
Every civilization falls if women refuse to do what they were made for and that is making babies.
every civilization falls, no matter what. Just a matter of time.
Men are also required to “make babies” after all. If the men are at war, kinda hard to impregnate each women 10 times, don’t you think?
Conclusion: Men should decide what’s good for themselves, for women, and for society because women don’t know what the fuck they’re doing and can’t help themselves from injecting feelings into their opinions
Every historical example of feminism I know was followed not long after with the destruction of the people who embraced feminism. It never worked in the long term and always led to self-destruction. I don’t see how it would be any different in the Western world. I certainly do not see any of the “progress” that liberals talk about. I only see regression.
Also the Spartans had a slave underclass, called the Helots. But at some point helots were like 95% of the population in Sparta. It’s all fun and games to have a slave underclass until they revolt and take over. It reminds of white Americans who absolutely want hordes of Mexicans working at minimum wage for them. Because they are too lazy to do the job themselves or pay people acceptable wages, they want Mexican cheap labor instead But the Mexicans are slowly taking over the US. They are what, something like 20% of the population now?
” Because they are too lazy to do the job themselves or pay people acceptable wages, ”
Bullshit. Farm work was done by white man before the Jews and CEOverlords learned that they could import the 3rd world’s scum and pay them 1:5 what a white man would earn.
Whitey has never been “Too lazy” to build a house.
The same goes for H1B visa holders in the tech industry.
I agree with you. What I am saying is that those who want Mexican immigrants are the lazy ones. They can’t even raise their own children, do the chores or maintain their lawn themselves. They would rather use Mexicans instead. Hard-working white men do not need or want Mexicans.
“Because they are too lazy to do the job themselves or pay people
acceptable wages, they want Mexican cheap labor”
Illegals get everything free without taxes and with no consequences for not obeying laws like having a driver’s license and insurance. They have more rights and freedoms than citizens do. All those labor laws, min wage, etc, those only apply to the citizens/serfs and those who employ them.
The total HISPANIC population comprise 16-17% of the population. It includes White Hispanics like Cameron Diaz or Charlie Sheen as well as Black people like as Black people. So we don’t have the demographics of people who are culturally hispanics.
However, I think it may become a problem in some states like California who were seized from Mexicans who still see it as theirs.
I’d like to see more articles on this general topic. What are the historical contexts of the beginning – and end – of feminism within a culture?
Back in the 60’s, thinkers could tell women “the path” to their liberation. Do X, then Y and you’ll end up with Z over time. What’s “the path” to liberation from feminism? What advice would a professor tell a young anti-feminist activist today? You’re fucked? History only goes one way? We’ve reached the end?
So far, all I’ve got is that the best we can hope for is to hasten the decadent phase of the collapse of the West and watch as the more barbaric civilizations overtake us. Please tell me there’s some other path aside from white people just dying out. I’d prefer to fix the problem ourselves rather than waiting for ISIS to conquer us and fix things.
The shortest path to fixing the problem is war. War or a major economic collapse.
ROK points out that there was a 1920s analogue of the modern feminist woman: the flapper – women who were cashed up as a result of the boom period, unconventional, drank a lot, danced a lot, looked down on traditional motherly values, etc, etc. And they even had their own white knights, called flippers.
Come the Depression, though, the flappers disappeared like water drying up on a hot day. Society looked down in a major way on women spending time and money frivolously on themselves while men, women, and children in the Dust Bowl were starving to death and Wall Street was raining bankers. That changed the pattern of society for the next thirty, forty years or so.
Major war — not the little proxy boy scout camps we’ve seen since roughly Vietnam onwards — also changes the dynamic to some extent. On one hand it makes a society results-oriented rather than process-oriented, which is the driving force behind all equalist measures one way or another — but on the other hand it takes a disproportionate chunk of the strongest and fittest specimens of a nation and feeds them to cannon.
One other point about war, and in particular women who point at any time a woman picks up a rifle. These are not actually feminist successes. Virtually every time a country has put guns into women’s hands, it does so only because it has run out of men. Russian female pilots were used for this reason, not because they were any better than male pilots. That classic stupid poster of a woman rolling up her sleeves, a feminist standard, actually speaks to that desperation: the poster was a call for female volunteers to go to work in an arms factory, because they could not get enough men to do it (the men being rather occupied with getting shot or killing other men on different continents). Israel conscripts women, certainly, but when you are a tiny pissy nation on a coastline surrounded by thousands of Arabic people in several Islamic nations that want you dead, it’s not like you have a lot of choice. Even fucking Singapore with national service does not conscript its women.
I remember very vividly a photograph from the dying days of World War 2 where an American soldier is posing with a captured German soldier. The German soldier is roughly 10 years old, dressed in a uniform, and looks frightened to death. This is the first cousin to women being rolled into a war effort. It’s a desperation move, and happens only when there are insufficient men left.
Thanks for the reply and anecdotes. If the only real solutions are “war or a major economic collapse” – conclusions I share – then there needs to be some soul-searching in the manosphere because a bunch of digital complaining isn’t going to change anything.
All the talk out there seems to assume that something short of war or economic collapse could change things. If there are no other options, there needs to be a change in tone. If we agree that Plan A won’t work, maybe there needs to be more Plan B discussion.
Example headlines:
Plan A: “Gamergate guys cause mild media disturbance for a few weeks then get ignored and no laws change, as usual, probably forever.”
Plan B: “How alienated, marginalized groups have historically become super-fucking-politically-relevant overnight.”
Your point is sound. The U.S. Military was forced to admit females when conscription of males ended.
“some other path aside from white people just dying out.”
Fear not. “Mohammad” was the most popular baby name in 1990 in Yugoslavia.
Whitey can decimate the 3/5 human’s population in the US and EU simply by cutting off welfare. More subhumans would die faster than Hitler’s death camps.
“Fear not. “Mohammad” was the most popular baby name in 1990 in Yugoslavia.”
Can you provide a source for that?
As somebody from the former Yugoslavia I am very interested.
A wise man once said:
“Women in search of establishing their equal rights often end up try acting like men. I just wish they would try to act like gentlemen.
I skimmed through the 300+ channels in a hotel room the other night. My eye was caught by footage of some Cancun/South Padre style spring break footage. Wet t-shirt/thong/twerkathon style competition thing. Girls up on stage with the mc gauging the crowd reaction. Yeah, my eye was caught by it, okay. Great bodies, basically nude. But they acted like complete pigs. This was lower than animal behavior. It was the most over the top air humping, ass-cheek shaking, breast cupping raunchiness I’ve ever seen. They were American white girls acting like complete assholes. Yeah, the god-given bodies were beautiful. They would have been 50 times more erotic if they’d just stood there smiling. The thrusting obvious overexposure was just straight boring. 15 years ago, if I’d seen a busty 20 year in a wet t-shirt, that image would have hit me like lightning. Like “Wow”. I’d think about it the next day, still kind of dazed. These days, it’s just a turn-off and nearly gross. Yeah, the internet is partially to blame but the absolutely lack of femininity is responsible too. They acted like pigs. They act like how men would act if they had tits to show off. Okay, that’s weird. But my point is that they have a 100% masculine attitude towards sexuality these days. Pure aggressiveness and unrestraint. “These are my tools. Watch me shake them like an idiot.” I’m not being sarcastic here. It was so stupid. I’m so glad I’m overseas where women have dignity and true sexual pride. Not getting up on stage like these Anglo pigs and spreading their anus open like a proctology exam for the whole world to see like depraved trannies on ecstasy and angel dust.
Well said – every word.
So true. These types of women are pyschologically and emotionally hideous. The ironic thing is less than a decade later every one of those women will be physically hideous. They are beautiful only because they are young.
Ah, but who are the “consumer” of their display? Follow the money, sir and you will find yourself looking in the mirror.
That’s kind of melodramatic. And I haven’t spend money on an Anglo female in 7 years.
Marshall is a purple/pink-pilled idiot, ignore his antics, for he knows not the way of the masculine male, yet.
“I’m so glad I’m overseas where women have dignity and true sexual pride. Not getting up on stage like these Anglo pigs and spreading their anus open like a proctology exam for the whole world to see like depraved trannies on ecstasy and angel dust.”
Man, that was pure poetry right there.
Going by what feminists say, you would ironically never know that Egypt and Babylon were a little bit feminist. Granted it was mostly based on their religious beliefs (Ishtar and Isis were quit popular). Nineveh is an exception
And note that God, being a fairly sensible male, in the Bible threw plagues and curses at them from on high and for an encore in Revelations tossed Babylon into the great fire 😛
In fact, almost all of the religions surrounding the Israelites were fertility worshipers – all descending from the Sumerian religion(s).
It is interesting to note that of all the religions in the area, the only one that did not worship sexuality was that of the Jews/Christians. In fact, the only deity in the entire region that didn’t engage in sexual congress nor have a wife was Elohim (The God of Judaism). Elohim, btw, was also present in ancient Sumeria, but was reportedly very unpopular compared to the other gods because he did NOT have a wife.
When Abram (whose father was an idol maker) left Ur (Bablyon/Sumeria), he took with him the God of the Flood – the God of Noah, and his son Shem, who were Abram’s ancestors. A singular idol of “The God of the Flood” was known as “El,” and multiple idols of him were known as “Elohim.”
Remember, it was not until Moses, several centuries later, that the Israelites were forbidden from worshipping idols. Abram very likely DID take idols called “Elohim” with him into the wilderness after making a covenant with God.
And, the Elohim’s most striking feature was that he was not married, and thus, was unaffected by sexuality.
Almost all other religions in the area were fertility worshippers – with the goddesses often having more power than the male gods. They were highly sexualized and worshipped such things as menstruation ritually, while consuming the combined male/female fluids after sex (like modern cuckolding fetishes) as a way to try to tap into the power of life/fertility.
The God of Judaism and Christianity did not succumb to pussy worship, making them an anomaly in the entire region. (Btw, these were also the peoples God commanded Moses to kill and wipe from the face of the earth while they wandered the desert for forty years!).
It says a lot about the basis of Christianity, doesn’t it? Especially since it is still here 3,300 years after the Pentateuch was written (the estimated era of Moses). What other religion of the area has lasted that long. You don’t even have to believe in the religion to respect it must have gotten “something” right to have lasted so much longer than so many of the others. (ie. It probably has nothing to religion but more to do with “its forumula” for civilization.)
That the Sumerians had a god they called El proves very little. It’s a word that simply means “god” in ancient semitic languages, and has been used by various peoples to refer to various deities, including some that the ancient Jews would have regarded as false gods.
No, “El” means “the God of the Flood” in Sumeria & Babylon.
It means quite a bit.
When Abram left Ur, he took with him “Elohim” (the plural of El – and, btw, Abram’s father was an Idol Maker by trade) – El was the god of the house of Shem, who was the son of Noah. Noah followed the God of the Flood – or “El.”
The geneology of the Bible stems from this point… as does the the Sumerian. (Gilgamesh was the grandson of Ham, who was also a son of Noah – the one who got abolished for making fun of Noah’s drunkeness).
Gilgamesh, in fact, declares war on “El” – or The God of the Flood” and tries to eradicate his existence in revenge for what El did by flooding the earth and killing his ancestors. (The Jews have always fled to escape persecuation – even back in Abram’s day).
Quite a big difference between Gilgamesh, who is thought to be Nimrod – or “The Rebel” – who built the tower of Babel in the Bible to try and defy “god – el” by building a tower so tall the flood could never top it, and the others gods of the day. (In Sumeria, the word God is never spoken – thus the Jehovah or JWH label, and the followers of Abram responded by calling Gilgamesh as “Nimrod” (the rebel) rather than by his real name. It was a battle of insults between two competing nations – much like how in WWI we called the Germans “The Hun” and in WWII we called the Germans “Jerry.”
The Bible and Ancient Sumeria are like two battling forces – and you can read both accounts like Britain battling Germany in the World Wars – and see the propaganda from both sides purporting their superiority.
In fact, almost all of the religions surrounding the Israelites were fertility worshipers – all descending from the Sumerian religion(s).
It is interesting to note that of all the religions in the area, the only one that did not worship sexuality was that of the Jews/Christians. In fact, the only deity in the entire region that didn’t engage in sexual congress nor have a wife was Elohim (The God of Judaism). Elohim, btw, was also present in ancient Sumeria, but was reportedly very unpopular compared to the other gods because he did NOT have a wife.
When Abram (whose father was an idol maker) left Ur (Bablyon/Sumeria), he took with him the God of the Flood – the God of Noah, and his son Shem, who were Abram’s ancestors. A singular idol of “The God of the Flood” was known as “El,” and multiple idols of him were known as “Elohim.”
Remember, it was not until Moses, several centuries later, that the Israelites were forbidden from worshipping idols. Abram very likely DID take idols called “Elohim” with him into the wilderness after making a covenant with God.
And, the Elohim’s most striking feature was that he was not married, and thus, was unaffected by sexuality.
Almost all other religions in the area were fertility worshippers – with the goddesses often having more power than the male gods. They were highly sexualized and worshipped such things as menstruation ritually, while consuming the combined male/female fluids after sex (like modern cuckolding fetishes) as a way to try to tap into the power of life/fertility.
The God of Judaism and Christianity did not succumb to pussy worship, making them an anomaly in the entire region. (Btw, these were also the peoples God commanded Moses to kill and wipe from the face of the earth while they wandered the desert for forty years!).
It says a lot about the basis of Christianity, doesn’t it? Especially since it is still here 3,300 years after the Pentateuch was written (the estimated era of Moses). What other religion of the area has lasted that long. You don’t even have to believe in the religion to respect it must have gotten “something” right to have lasted so much longer than so many of the others. (ie. It probably has nothing to religion but more to do with “its forumula” for civilization.)
I’d hazard a guess that the Spartan ‘feminists’ were nothing like the lazy, materially bloated, entitled keyboard cowards that pass themselves off as feminists today.
Ha! to rephrase, “I’d hazard a guess that the Spartan men were nothing like the lazy, materially bloated, entitled keyboard cowards that pass themselves
off as men today”
As with most things, the pendulum can swing both ways. But since this article was about Spartan ‘feminists’, I don’t know why you needed to make that comment. Trying to prove some childish point? Make a comment like that when it’s relevant.
Bubbles is just mad because she’s one of the lazy, materially bloated, entitled keyboard cowards that you speak of.
there’s nothing wrong with expanding the intellect and examining relevant ideas.
Proof that feminism can crest and then recede. The current tide of feminism seems to come in surges coinciding with a graduating series of ‘issues’ served up on a platter, eg: suffrage, DV, abortion, rape, etc. Each successive wave of activism resembles the logistics and organization of a cohesive military campaign during a major war. Like a season of storms or mutating recurrences of the same plague, we must seed each storm carefully and steer it OFF OUR COASTLINE. Conditions are always favorable for opportunistic power grabs, sometimes more favorable, sometimes quite null. We don’t want to end up as castrates under the dominatrix whip. Always keep frame. Our frame is our fortress.
So nobody done it yet? Fine. I”ll do it.
THIS.IS.SPARTA!!!!!!
“You — what is your profession?”
“Gender studies.”
“You — what’s yours?”
“Barista.”
“And you?”
“Online blogger.”
“ROOSHANS! WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION?!”
“WAR!”
“You see, my friend? You brought many men — but I brought more warriors.”
Gender studies and barista?
Those are not men.
The ideal state is one where all men are warriors, but only when they have to be. Cincinnatus working his fields, appointed dictator of Rome to fight off the barbarians, then goes right back to being a farmer. You want to be Switzerland, every male with assault rifles and a couple years of training, not Sparta with every male sentenced to being eternal soldiers and slaves to ruling over slaves.
Switzerland is as feminist as the rest of the West although they took time to allow women to vote.
“You — what is your profession?”
“Gender studies.”
I laughed indecently hard at this.
At least they were able to put women back in their place — but too late.
WE MEN create empires.
WE MEN create civilizations.
We MEN are the creators of worlds…..
Women consume….Women breed….they have a supporting role…that is it and nothing else.
This is the truth they everyday in their lives…and the truth that lesser-man (betas/manginas/male SJW) MUST face.
One thing that I’d like to point. Spartan women respected Spartan men, they respected masculinity. When a foreign women asked Gorgo(Leonidas’s wife) why the women “ruled” over the men, she said: “because we are the only ones who give birth to REAL men”. I don’t think that giving the women those rights was the cause of the Spartan decline. By the time of the battle of Leuctra, there where only 1.000 Spartan men in the city, 400 of wich died during the battle. So, after 30 years of war against Athens, I’d say that the lack of men was the real reason of their decline. We can learn, so many years later, of their mistakes but we should also remember the glory that Spartan men achieved in the battle field, in gymnastics,wrestling and boxing, all strongholds of masculinity.
I am sure that Spartan women didn’t cry all the time about being “raped” when men looked at them and constantly cried to the authorities to ban and censor things that cause them to “trigger”.
Actually it was customary for young Spartan women to sing and dance in front of the spartan men naked. This was both a way to encourage the Spartan men and women to marry/mate as well as a way to get the women to accept the fact that they, just like the men, will be judged for their bodies.
There was also a law that dictated that Spartan men should share their wives. If it was the case that a younger more physically fit Spartan man wanted to have sex with your wife then you allowed him. This cuckolding was primarily done for the sake of eugenics. Sparta required a constant feed of strong and healthy boys to become warriors and sometimes the older population may get too stingy and possessive over their more younger wives. Such possessiveness will not help in the endeavor of creating strong warriors, this this law was created to ensure good genetics will be passed down.
I doubt the Peloponnesian war had much to do with it. For one, it had very few direct clashes between Spartan and Athenian forces to begin with, so there wouldn’t have been much population depletion from attrition. For most of the war, the stronger Spartan army would raid the Athenian countryside while the Athenian army hid behind its city walls, while the stronger Athenian navy would drop hit-and-run raiding parties into the Spartan countryside. SInce neither side could bring the other to decisive battle on favourable terms, the war was fought with many indirect means, much like the Cold War.
Yes, I know that, but you have to consider the decline in Spartan male population since the Persian Wars. In that time, say 480 b.c, the total male population able to fight was estimated to be around 8.000 men and 100 years later you have just 1.000 men(I’m talking about the homoioi,the full citizens,not the merchants or slaves).
When a foreign women asked Gorgo(Leonidas’s wife) why the women “ruled”
over the men, she said: “because we are the only ones who give birth to
REAL men”.
Do you have any historical reference?
The movie 300 is mostly a fiction.
Plutarch: *The Parallel lives(The Parallel lives by Plutarch Vol. I of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1914)
*Sayings of Spartans(Apophthegmata Laconica by Plutarch Vol. III of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1931)
*Sayings of Spartan women
OK. I stand corrected
Were Spartan women powerful, relative to Spartan men? No. That needs to be stressed. They had much more power compared to other Western women at the time, but this was balanced by the fact that Spartan men were themselves so powerful compared to other Europeans. Women inheriting and owning property is a stupid idea, though as we can tell from the article it became a necessity. Men need to work their land and remain a dominant domestic presence, in addition to living as warriors.
Probably why the US Founding Fathers recommended such a model – mind our own business and stay near home and tend our fields, but if anyone attacks us, let’s rip their intestines out through their assholes.
It was a good attempt. The women fubared it though, once again, in their efforts to make the world “nice.”
Interesting that the Spartans extended these rights out of necessity. By contrast, today they are extended as a matter of luxury. I wonder how long that can last?
Actually, women’s admission into the work force and labor in the U.S. was out of necessity during both WWII and WWI.
I don’t buy the notion that women weren’t a significant part of the workforce before the world wars. I suspect it’s an illusion borne out of the fact that women entered specific fields that had been dominated by the demographics of men that were conscripted for war.
There was a similar article about this subject written on the spearhead ,yes but what was our economic driver?
You know I have found taking people’s opinions on history is a precarious thing to do.
Can you share your sources? What sources have your read that influenced you to draw this conclusion?
I am not saying your wrong, but having a history background myself I’d like to know.
Look at the bottom of the article, there is link to an academic paper.
“Note: Credit goes to this piece for inspiring this article, and the original research paper this article is based on can be found here.”
Prosperity breeds corruption and complacency in men.
And cunt like behavior from women.
Women don’t deserve rights. They should be used as baby factories.
Rights are not something a person “earns” or deserves, also they are not granted to you by other humans. See the U.S. Constitution.
The US Constitution is a useless piece of paper. (See Bush, Obama, ect…)
I dont know how long ill live but it will be interesting to see how all this plays out in 100 years.
Spartan society gave women power. Needless to say Spartan society fell soon after.
What we have nowadays is the Greek mangina
Many aspects of social organization and preferences correlate with economic level. Consider the relationship between fertility rates and economic level (also correlated with degree of urbanization). Rich countries are more reluctant to engage in large-scale warfare, also. And it appears that a society’s willingness to impose the death penalty varies inversely with its economic standing.
In their novel Lucifer’s Hammer, Niven and Pournelle argued that moral standards are a function of economic standing. However, the causal relationship might not be what they imagined: it’s possible that only as moral standards rise can a society make progress economically. Ponder in this regard both slavery and property rights!
Haha the more you fight, the more we revolt.
It’s all psychology 😉
I wonder how much ‘push back’ there was from the Spartan women when the nation started to rescind their new rights? I am thinking the very real possibility of being conquered / enslaved / raped might have affected their opinion.
@ Ken Bourne,
Great article – I enjoyed reading it. I see you linked the No Ma’am site for reference to Aristotle’s Spartan Women. There is another article on that site that discusses the same phenomenon but tries to argue it from the biological side. I see you have a degree in a STEM subject… with any luck, it would be in Biology. What do you think of the argument presented (albeit very long). It seems to me this is not a peculiarity to humans, but rather to all species who reproduce sexually. That damned hind-brain! It should be obvious to us how this works biologically, yet it is not.
Another probable cause is that Spartan men just didn’t care about what the bitches were up to. Spartan men of military age very much preferred the intimate company of their brothers in arms, to the extent that they mostly didn’t care that their wives were having flings with older Spartans retired from the military. The gayness of Spartan men is well attested to in primary sources, and was a well-established stereotype and a running joke in ancient Greece. A wedding night guide for Spartan girls even recommended them to speak in low-pitch voices and use honey to stick extra hair onto their bodies to appear more sexually attractive to their husbands.
The sapien female has contributed almost nothing to civilization. Art, music, drama, engineering, science, literature, philosophy, religion, and technology have been and still is dominated by men (the literature and art today is bogus standard stuff.)
If every man decided to sleep in, women would be feasting on the weeds and drinking out of puddles by the afternoon.
I think the women could manage to keep things running, even if they didn’t originally build/invent it. Invention and technical skill are two different kinds of intelligences. I don’t think Einstein was very good with plumbing, carpentry or financial management either.
“Keeping things running” has a definition: stagnation.
Would they be willing and capable of taking up the more physically strenuous jobs?
No!
I’m signed on as an assistant for my father, he works for CRST. My job is to help load and unload the trailer, keep the pads in order and occasionally assemble equipment or furniture. Is this job easy? No but I do it anyway because my family valued hard work. Oh and I have fibroid tumors in my uterus which as a result causes literal tear inducing agony when on my period as well as severe fatigue. And I have to wear a tampon and a Depend, or whatever I’m wearing looks like the horse scene from The Godfather. Know how I deal with the pain? Two Advil, I’d take OxyContin but that sounds too addictive. $12 an hour and it’s not one of my dream careers(one being an Alt/Horror Model or being in a Death Metal band) but it’s a job. Hard work isn’t icky to me unlike most young ladies in my generation. So does this mean I’m not a woman because*looks down* I’m 100% certain I’m a woman.
All Greek women of antiquity promoted masculinity and manhood, in some city states women had more power, in others they had less. Ancient Spartan women would celebrate Male masculinity and manhood. Modern day feminists are trying to do the very opposite.
They probably also didn’t give women all the rights. For example they probably didn’t give them office power. So taking away their rights was easy.
Now we don’t stand a chance.
Best to adapt boys or die.
Interesting article. So, what was / is the economic necessity in the West that has created the Equality-At-All-Costs feminine state?
My theory is that our economic system is a Ponzi scheme that needs growth at all costs. It is not simply good to make $10,000,000 a year. That amount must grow every year or the economic system fails. Why? Mostly because we have a leveraged debt based economy. The amount of money needed to pay back current debts simply does not exist. Therefore there must be ever increasing dollars in order to pay back ever increasing debt. Note that the underlying assets do not change–Americans have less real wealth than they did in the 1960s. But they “earn” far more “dollars”, whatever good that does them.
In order to vastly grow our economy, the west took 3 major steps:
1) 1950s / 1960s boom – creation of credit for large purchases (all large purchases were always made with cash.. this creates the false idea that more people can afford something just because they are offered credit to do so)
2) 1970s / 1980s boom – Women enter the workforce, drastically increasing output and wages, allowing more shit to be produced, and more shit to be purchased (interestingly, household wealth did not change much)
3) 1990s / 2000s boom – credit cards (this one was probably more gradual starting in the 70s) and mortgages were used to borrow BACK money on assets you already owned, indebting yourself into the future, and creating new “dollars” you could buy things with, without the corresponding level of work or wages generally needed to earn dollars.
4) We are trying to encourage more borrowing with near zero interest rates, but there is just no demand. The level of debt is too high, and consumers can no longer afford to service their debt, no matter what its interest rate. There are not many tricks left in the book. Quantitative Easing has been tried 3 times. I shudder to think what is next.
Also one nitpick in the article: “Sparta’s population was one-fifth of what it had been 200 years prior, an astonishing reduction. It is interesting to note that this is also the case in the modern developed world, where birth rates have been below replacement levels for decades”
Just to be clear, the “modern developed world” has an out of control exponentially growing population. We are in no way in “danger” (as if it would be a bad thing) of shrinking to 1/6 our current population. In actuality, we will see population continue to grow, and our limited resources continue to be stretched.
“We are in no way in “danger” (as if it would be a bad thing) of shrinking to 1/6 our current population.”
I don’t know, a reasonably comprehensive exchange of nukes would do the trick.
It’s not a new theory linking economic prosperity and women’s rights. What many don’t know is in US Kennedy signed EPA out of necessity. In his own words “to beats the Reds” He failed of course and the victory over Soviet Union can be primarily attributed to Henry Kissinger.
“Aristotle wrote that in Sparta,
the legislator wanted to make the whole city (or country) hardy and
temperate, and that he carried out his intention in the case of the men,
but he overlooked the women, who lived in every sort of intemperance
and wealth. He added that in those regimes in which the condition of the
women was bad, half the city could be regarded as having no laws.” (source wikipedia)
In the battle of Leuctra in 371 BC, where Thebes defeated Sparta, Spartan forces outnumbered Theban forces. Just saying.
See shortsightedness would say women are just as good as men, indeed they perform better in most cases. But the elevation of a women is detrimental to her psyche she views herself as an equal, but it wasn’t meant to be nor will it pan out. History shows when a society bends the natrual roles it’s doomed to fail. The U.S. included I saw an article today about transgendered children, and it was brad pits daughter trying to be a boy. So sad they applaud this the comments where ” wow they are so progressive” tell me when that girl wakes up it’ll be to late her vagina will be closed from hormone treatment, yes so progresive. Any one who doesn’t believe that there is an insidious threat out there just waiting to destroy you and your family is blind deaf and dumb. Its like yes turn on tv and be bombarded with murder and despair then come get our pills to hint hint help you then kill yourself. And people think this stuff is normal, I watched a single episode of sons of anarchy i got twenty minutes in the show I saw a women tortured a male rape and school shooting and that was the previews. I know people who saw less death in Afghanistan. I’m just saying this is entertainment but what is it doing to your brain it’s priming you to absorb it for real.
Only two classes of people were allowed tombstones in Sparta: Men who died in battle, and women who died in childbirth.
The common denominator? Both were considered to have died serving the State.
Now this site just sounds like a giant contradiction. You want women to be chaste, marry have kids and be quiet submissives that never question your actions. Yet most guys cheat on chaste women, whine because they have too many(biological) children, whine because the wife never initiates sex and then whine because of the added expenses that come with marriage with only one spouse working and are quick to call the wife a Gold Digger despite doing all the right things. Well right things according to most of the men on the website.
we will. Meanwhile the society we live in falls and declines 🙂
Wasn’t it the same with Marxism? After world war I and the Bolshevik revolutions and Russian civil war, the country was in a state of chaos. The introduction of women in the workforce, specially for the later 5 year plans was a necessity not a product of ideology.
So it was probably the total war of 1917-1945 that forced women into the workplace, again out of necessity. Even more reason to avoid war. Might anyone be shocked that first wave feminists were very pro-war?
There is a huge omission here. Spartan men were not allowed to freely visit their homes and had to sneak out of their camps. That had a more significant impact on their birth rate.
Which is why their wives would have flings with older Spartans retired from the military. And the military men largely didn’t mind, as they tended to prefer the intimate company of their brothers-in-arms. Primary sources attest to the fact that the gayness of Spartan men was a well-established stereotype in ancient Greece.
Good read, thank you.
Just like in our society. Working women have fewer babies. And it makes sense too. A working would would not have the time to have and raise children.
didnt Sparta also have institutionalized pederasty?
Exactly !
Feminist values are what led to Rome, Sparta, Greece and Babylon’s downfall.
This was caused by men no longer being interested in marriage because what I call of female dominance. By female dominance I mean the fact that no matter how equal men and women are men will always be disposable and women will always be hypergamous (it being an evolutionary means of survival and all)
Lack of marriage means a decrease in birth rate which can only lead to an unstable population (more old people then young) as we have in US and Europe. The only thing maintaining Western society is immigration mostly by Islamic countries.
The only Empire that managed to survive social destabilisation by means of liberalism and feminism was Rome and it came at a big price. Once secular Rome had to adopt Christianity under the rule of Constantine. In the near future Islam will be the only survival method of feminism as sad as it to say.
“History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes,” – Mark Twain